D&D 5E First TPK Players got frustrated

[Shadowdweller00]

The story immediately raises a couple warnings for me:

1) If the players bypassed rooms full of kobolds...how did these kobolds learn that there were PCs about? And/or then decide to attack? Usually bypassing rooms full of enemies means either sneaking by them or bargaining one's way past. In which case the kobolds should NOT have come to assist unless some sort of alarm was raised. Did the PCs just ignore an alarm after sneaking by unsecured rooms full of unknown enemies?

2) So the PCs try to interrupt some ritual - presumably being cast either by some sort of BBEG or inner circle of cultists? If there was any sort of connection between whoever was casting the ritual and the kobolds, why weren't the kobolds expected to come assist in combat? Why would they barricade the door where their associates would presumably be trapped with unknown foes? If the kobolds were NOT associated with whoever was casting the ritual, why did they work against the PCs instead of against the ritual caster?

3) How did the PCs fail to realize that there were more enemies about? Did the PCs even have a chance to notice them? Did they fail perception checks? Beyond maybe a door with a bar (in which case, why could it be barred from OUTSIDE the place the ritual was being cast?) or possibly a lock, I would tend to think barricading to be fairly noisy.

There could conceivably be reasonable answers to these and I'm all about appropriate consequences for poor strategic planning...but sometimes DMs also fudge things or take mental shortcuts that are NOT fair to PCs.

 

[Quickleaf]

Congratulations!

Er, uh, do we not say congratulations for a DM's first TPK anymore? I forget.

[MENTION=6861737]Bladecoder[/MENTION] It's really hard to answer your question without knowing more because of the many factors involved. Generally, my observation is that most players aren't whining snots and most DMs aren't self-aggrandizing sadists. So it's to everyone's benefit to be decent to one another, understand what we all want out of the game, and if something isn't working to talk it out and course correct.

From my perspective, the only problem is that you had players upset because they felt you were being unfair. That's it – that's the problem – full stop.

I'd sit down and talk about it, maybe leading with something like: "Hey, so you guys felt I was being unfair with the kobolds last session. It's important that we all have fun and that as DM I'm mostly a fair-minded arbiter. Tell me a little about what felt unfair to you? Maybe talking about it will help me realize areas where I could have been more clear, or ways I can improve my DMing. I'd like the threats in the game to be real threats, so your victories can be real victories, but maybe in pursuing that sort of game I overlooked something important to you guys."

 

[Oofta]

Whenever I start getting the feeling that "oh crap, these guys are setting themselves up to die" I start asking for appropriate skill checks, typically investigation or survival. I then let them know something like ... "you know these ruins are infested with kobolds and that if there is a fight you will likely have to fight your way back through the masses". The characters may realize the danger they are walking into even if the players do not.

But I'm not even sure this qualifies for that because I have a couple of questions. Why did the kobolds not come out of their rooms when the group was walking down the hall? How did the kobolds left behind know the group had reached the final room? If an alarm was set off in the final room, why wasn't an alarm set off before?

You may (or may not) be falling into the trap of "the adventurers didn't resolve the issue the way I expected them to so they fail". Too often when I come up with scenarios I'm thinking "the way to solve this puzzle is to do X then Y". In your case, you may have been thinking "the characters will need to kill all the kobolds on the way in, and then set up a distraction...". Don't assume the players will follow your plan, or that they will be or need to be tactically brilliant.

So how do I avoid that? By thinking like a kobold. They've obviously infested this dungeon. They have an important ritual going on, one they are likely to suspect pesky adventurers will try to interrupt. So they'd set up at least minimal watches and be on the lookout for intruders. The weakness in their plan is that they're spread kind of thin. The patrols can't cover every entrance (there may even be a few ways in they don't know about). Perhaps the patrols can be avoided, or taken out so quickly they don't have a chance to raise an alarm. Maybe they set traps that can be avoided.

The point is to set up situations where the defenders are taking reasonable precautions, but precautions that are not insurmountable.

Then you also have to avoid the temptation to cheat. How did the kobolds left behind know about the invaders? How did they construct a barrier without being heard?

Last but not least, sometimes the adventurers lose. Let your players know you did not plan this, and give them the choice to be captured or create new characters. Just don't expect them to conquer your dungeon in exactly the way you had planned for them.

 

[Motorskills]

Matt Colville has a great video on this

[video=youtube;4u3DWxPknYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u3DWxPknYU&t[/video]

Not sure if I gave the correct link to start at the beginning of the video, you definitely should.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm generally a "kill the PCs and let the players sort it out" DM, but getting killed while running away is embarrassing as well as frustrating. Try not to punish running away, or your players won't try it anymore.

It's similar to having trusted NPCs betray them. If you do that too often, they won't trust NPCs anymore and the game will be worse for it.

Consider using rules that give the PCs a good chance of success whenever they're fleeing from enemies, regardless of the specifics of the situation. (Maybe the DMG chase rules? Haven't really looked at them). This might restrict you from portraying certain kinds of situations in the fiction, but will give the players more clarity on the consequences of their decisions, which often makes for a better game.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hi! So my players and I had a game last night and as the title says there was a TPK. This happened because the players went into a major battle with a flawed strategy that was not going to (and did not) work and they left major sections of the dungeon filled with enemies.

So here is the story, they essentially went into this dungeon to save their friend from being used in this draconic ritual. So they go through the dungeon skipping some rooms along the way (mostly be accident, but a few on purpose) that we full of kobolds. Once they made it to the final room they looked in through the key hole and formed a plan. This plan did not work. Once they decided to run they found out that they couldn't as the Kobolds who they had left alive barricaded the door. This is when they all died.

So my players first said that they felt that I was being unfair. So I told them that they were not necessarily dead but just unconsious and captured by the kobolds, as I felt bad for making the combat very difficult. This gave them the idea that I had planned this all along as a plot twist (eventhough I didn't) which made them annoyed.

Overall this has made me regret letting them keep their characters alive. What do you think, was I being to harsh in combat? Should I have let them keep their characthers?

Thanks in advance! Leave comments below.

I'm unclear on the original situation - Is this the first TPK, and they didn't like it, or is it one of many TPKs and the first time they thought it was unfair?

So I can be brutal to my players. And from what little you're described, it sounds logical enough. But, is it consistent with what you've done in the past? Have you had other encounters or scenarios that would have prepared them for the possibility.

Like it or not, players will often meta-game based on your style and approach. Many times without even realizing it. When you change your approach, then it can cause problems like this.

As to what you should have done - you and your players need to have a talk about what your expectations are and theirs, and if you're shifting to a different approach, then they need to be aware of that.

I'm not a fan of the idea that you design multiple ways to escape a situation like this. Of course, my players expect that, but they also know that I'm willing to go with whatever crazy and creative ideas they come up with (but grounded within the physics and feel of our campaign world).

The last campaign ended up being much less brutal than my normal ones. This was a combination of using the (much more forgiving) 5e rules, even with some modifications, and the nature of the players themselves. They weren't a group that took a lot of initiative on their own, preferring a more defined story line to latch onto. That's fine, and I can work with that, but it also tends to have the effect of making any single PC more important to the campaign than I would normally consider. And I needed to adjust lethality as a result of that. Of course, I try to be very consistent, and early in any group, the first few sessions are learning each other's play styles, and that's when I use encounters (and especially combat) to set expectations, so they know how to address challenges and threats in the future.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You weren't being unfair, but you weren't making it much fun for the players. TPK isn't fun unless it is magnificently heroic.

Is dying one-by-one with no chance for escape and they know it "magnificently heroic?"

Because it can be a lot of fun, for the players and the DM. In fact, there are entire games based on this premise.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is excellent advice. Several of my players would much rather be dead than captured. For them being defeated but not killed is far more insulting than being defeated and killed.

Second point: I think you should make it thoroughly clear that you did not plan on their capture. Further, talk with them about how they view capture. Are they OK with it? Many players hate the loss of control. I myself (when a player) don't mind if the DM has a story line that involves my capture. But, by all means don't make me play through the capture scene pretending that the outcome isn't pre-ordained. In my view, if capture is inevitable just narrate the capture and be done with it.

OK, and what if capture is not inevitable.

In my campaigns the willingness to capture is built into a number of situations, as I think it should be. The game is one of challenges, and dealing with being captured and how you might escape is a heck of a challenge. It goes both ways, too, as there are a lot of intelligent monsters in my campaigns that won't fight to the death. So the PCs have to determine how to handle those that either try to run away, or those that surrender.

Of course, I don't have "story lines" of that nature either. It's just things like the acknowledgement that drow and other races practice slavery, for example. And if you're not killed and don't escape, then you're probably headed for door #3. The story itself is still determined by the players and their decisions and actions. If that led them to an encounter where it was surrender or die, they'd have to make that decision themselves.

If they happen to be in Skullport and run into a snatch gang that is specifically looking for opportunities to pick up new slaves for the Xanathar, perhaps you should have listened when informed that the alleys and lesser used walkways were more dangerous.

 

[Azurewraith]

I would of done the exact same thing. This isn't a MMO those mobs won't just sit there until you move within Aggro range and you better believe they know you are there from all the noise your making. As for bad plans kill 'em, PC's should change tact if a plan is going south or how about run away, I guess running wasn't an option here but meh.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, that's the way experienced players play and it's a normal part of the "social contract", even if it's an unspoken one: "Screwing up can be fatal." But the OP has described a situation where the players apparently hadn't taken that thought on board or, if they did, they hadn't taken it seriously; and that, it seems to me, is the underlying issue. For one reason or another, their expectations about the game turned out to be wrong.

It might be that they thought deep down that, like in a video game, if you die you can just reload the last save and try again. It might be that they didn't know that monsters can actually move about from room to room and do things to defend themselves, rather than standing stock still waiting to be killed. There could be all kinds of reasons. We don't know because the OP hasn't told us, but we don't really need to know. What we do know is that the players misunderstood how D&D plays out at the OP's table.

Incidentally, it's possible to run a D&D game where this is true. There's nothing inherent to the form of an RPG that says you can't retcon things, or have the players wake up from a dream or vision and realize that that last fight was a premonition and not reality, or experience a wild magic surge that sends them back in time.

I've run some games with the concept of "karma", which I originally intended as a plot coupon in case I ever wanted to railroad the players, so that I could do it honestly. (My intended usage: "Oh, you critted the bad guy to death in his first appearance? Well, that didn't happen, he escaped instead, but here's a karma point to compensate. You can use it to save yourself in a similar plot-related way if you ever need it.") It turned out that I never really used it to railroad or save villains, after all, but it was pretty useful for letting the PCs live dangerously but still have consequences. E.g. one PC went hunting for roc eggs at 7th level or so, solo, during downtime, and it took her at least three tries because she kept getting spotted and killed, despite trying multiple different approaches like IIRC Sanctuary. Instead of the consequence being "one dead PC," the consequence was "two players anxious (or furious?) with the third player for frivolously bringing two karma points of cosmic mischief down on their heads," which I felt was a win.

Anyway, UX design tells us that users are more willing to experiment when they have an undo button available, and my experience tells me that 5E players respond the same way to an undo option. They are more willing to try new things.